Analysis of Statewide Ballot Propositions

Note: This analysis is done by David Welch, former chair of DACC and secretary of the
Butte County Democratic Central Committee. There will be elements of objective
analysis and of my personal opinions and the distinction between those should be
obvious.
The propositions with single digit numbers were placed on the ballot by the state
legislature. Those with 2-digit numbers were placed on the ballot by petition drives.

Proposition 1  YES Housing bonds: Provides for the issuance of $11.25 billion in state
bonds for housing. Most of that would go to assist various housing programs for lower
income people. Those bonds would be repaid from the state general fund. $1.25 billion
would be used to the state veteran home loan program and those would be repaid as
the loans are repaid by the borrowers. No direct tax increase. We have an extreme
shortage of housing for lower income people. California Democratic Party endorses
a yes vote.

Proposition 2  YES Increases state “rainy day fund”: This one is extremely technical and
complex in detail, but the gist of it is fairly simple. California has a “Budget Stabilization
Account”, commonly referred to as a “rainy day fund”, that is designed to smooth out
sharp rises and falls in state government income. Because our state revenues depend
heavily on the incomes of high earners, state revenue can fluctuate sharply from year to
year. In high revenue years, money is deposited into that fund in order to reduce the
need for sharp program cuts in lower revenue years. The effect of this proposition is to
increase the money deposited into that fund. California Democratic Party says yes.
 

Proposition 3 YES Maintains the Millionaire Tax rate: In 2012, Californians passed a
proposition setting a higher tax rate on the highest incomes. That tax has a “sunset”
date and will expire in 2031. Proposition 3 would extend that tax permanently and index
it to inflation. It is not a new tax, but an extension of an existing tax. California
Democratic Party endorses a yes vote.

Proposition 4 YES Permits public funding of elections: Would allow state and local
governments to create programs for public funding of elections. Current California law
prohibits the state and most local governments from doing that. This would not create
any public financing program but would permit it to happen in the future. California
Democratic Party endorses a yes vote.

Proposition 5 YES Modifies the recall process: Separates the replacement of a recalled
official from the recall election. Presently, if a statewide officer is recalled, the election
to replace them is consolidated with the recall election. If Prop 5 passes, the
replacement part of the election would be removed and the office would be filled by the
same process as if the office became vacant in other ways, such as the death of an
officeholder. Supporters argue, and I agree, that it would tend to make recalls for purely
political disagreements less likely. The California Democratic party says yes.

Proposition 37  YES Help moderate income home buyers: Would create a state run
second mortgage program to help moderate income buyers meet the down payment
requirements for a commercial first mortgage. The focus would be on newly built
homes, as a way of encouraging the construction of new housing supply. Up to $25
billion in bonds would be issued to support the program and the bonds would be repaid
as the loans were repaid, not through taxes. California Democratic Party
recommends a yes vote.

Proposition 38  YES State support for immunology research: Will direct the state to issue
$8.4 billion in general obligation bonds to fund research in immunology and immune
therapies. That’s a promising area of medical research that may offer valuable
treatments for a variety of diseases. The California Democratic Party recommends a
yes vote. Personal opinion: I do have some qualms about large state subsidies
directed to a particular disease or area of research by law.

Proposition 39 NO Voter ID: Would institute a new requirement that voters present
government issued ID when voting in person and include the last 4 digits of the ID when
voting by mail. I’m going to quote the statement of the League of Women voters:  "This voter ID measure is not about protecting voters; it is about importing the current federal administration’s election lies and intimidation tactics into California. It would expose voter's sensitive personal information, create new ways to reject eligible ballots, and wrongly target voters through error-prone citizenship checks."; California Democratic Party recommends a no vote.
 

Proposition 40 YES  Billionaire Tax: Would levy a one-time 5% tax on state residents with a
net worth of more than $1 billion. Highly controversial. Many of the super rich are able
to shield much of their income from taxes, so a wealth tax seems valuable. Some
people worry that it will discourage start-ups or cause the very rich to leave the state.
The California Democratic party recommends a Yes vote.

Propositions 41 NO and 42 NO Nullify Prop 40 These are a pair in a way. Both of them,
especially 41, are complex, and hard for an average person to explain or understand.
Both of them are supported by a small group of billionaires and the goal of both is to
effectively nullify Proposition 40, the billionaire tax, even if it passes. I personally think
this kind of deceptive design is a serious misuse of the initiative process. It would take
a lot to explain both of them, so I’ll make it simple: If you support Proposition 40, you
should vote no on 41 and 42. California Democratic Party says No

Proposition 43 NO Increases vote to pass local taxes: Would make it more difficult for
voters to vote to raise local special taxes. Presently, if a local government body puts a
special tax for a particular purpose on the ballot, it requires a 2/3 vote to pass. But, if a
group of citizens gathers signatures to put a local special tax on the ballot, it only takes
a simple majority. This would change that to a 2/3 vote. The California democratic
party recommends a no vote.

Proposition 44 NO New requirement for health care centers: Would require that a
certain type of non-profit federally qualified health centers – generally outpatient clinics
serving low-income populations – spend at least 90% of all their revenue on direct
services to patients. Sponsored and funded by SEIU-UHW – a large and politically
powerful health care workers union. Essentially all organizations of health care
providers, hospitals, etc., oppose it, saying that’s an unrealistic standard. A personal
note: This particular union has a long history of sponsoring similar measures as a way
of putting pressure on some segment of the healthcare industry. This feels like another
one of those. The California Democratic Party says no.

Proposition 45 NO Speed up and simplify environmental review: Would dramatically
shorten the timelines and simplify review processes under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Supporters say that CEQA reviews slow down essential projects
and add too much to costs. Opponents of this proposition say it would cut out
opportunities for public comment and rush projects through before the affected public
had a chance to express their opinions. The California Democratic Party
recommends a no vote.